Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world needs more search engines

0x65.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 549 posts

Re: The world needs more search engines

#501

Post by crispinb »

green1 wrote: post #279

There is no way Google doesn't use fingerprinting, or something even more advanced/creepy. I never sign into Google, use private browsing by default and use VPNs (not to hide, just for various location reasons), and Youtube's recommended for you is full of stuff unrelated the current video I'm watching that I've seen before with different IPs and locations/VPNs. Edit: LMAO at the sudden attempt to bury this post with…

I find exactly the opposite. I use adblockers, privacy badger, allow no third party cookies, and segregate google logins. It's pretty obvious from my google & youtube searches that they have no idea who I am or where I've been.

Funnily enough, it wouldn't occur to me however to use my own experience to make a sweeping judgement about what Google does in the large, because I just don't know. Even if I suspected, I'd be loath to confuse this with knowledge for the sake of my own cognitive hygiene.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#502

Post by scarface74 »

summerlight wrote: post #499
scarface74 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if it “well defined” by the DOJ, you should be able to find a specific example where a minority vertically integrated platform vendor was declared a “monopoly” and specific remediation steps were enforced. Not a Wikipedia article. If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?

> you should be able to find a specific example where a minority vertically integrated platform vendor was declared a “monopoly” and specific remediation steps were enforced. I already told you that the market defining process is a very case-specific one and big techs now are unprecedented. Why are you trying to find applicable prior arts on such cases? You asked how Apple can be monopoly on a market and I gave you o…

I already told you that the market defining process is a very case-specific one and big techs now are unprecedented. Why are you trying to find applicable prior arts on such cases?

Maybe because I don’t believe that people can randomly make up definitions instead of citing precedent?

There has been multiple antitrust lawsuits and investigations on Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for their gaming consoles while their exercise of monopolistic power was nowhere comparable to Apple's nowadays. Why don't you google just 2~3 words before making such a false claim?

Well seeing that Nintendo specifically has been very strict about what was allowed on its platform, forced third parties to use its manufacturing facilities since the 80s, forced all software whether distributed physically or virtually to be licensed and to pay a fee and had a much larger marketshare, where was the government intervention? Where were the consent decrees? Lawsuits?

Please provide one citation where any of the console manufacturers were ever forced to change their business practices?

If my claim is “false”, you should easily be able to find a citation.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#504

Post by setnone »

tschakkaMarc wrote: post #89
streetcat1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does cliqz makes money?

Hi, Marc here, I work at Cliqz. We (unfortunately) don’t (at least not a reasonable amount). We have an advertising model, but it does not rely on any personal data. We also always think (and tested) a paid product, which would be the purest and (In my view) best form. Experience unfortunately suggests, that only very few people would pay. But, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise. Going back to the article tho…

it doesn’t seem like a crazy idea to pay for a quality privacy focused search product. I’d better pay with actual money than with personal data.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#505

Post by mikorym »

bko wrote: post #73

Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…

I used to do that, but it's not necessary anymore.

You can almost always, by phrasing more carefully, get exactly what you need with DDG.

I also think that it's better to learn to search properly than finding the best search engine.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#506

Post by joshuamorton »

anigbrowl wrote: post #410
bko wrote: post #73

Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…

The google result is exactly what I want. Yes, when what you want happens to be the lowest common denominator - in this case, the most recent Spiderman movie. When the next movie in the franchise comes out in a few years and you don't like it so much because the news guy is now played by someone else, you'll be complaining that your preferences have stayed the same but Google no longer handles them as well.

This implies that the results won't change.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#507

Post by theamk »

xfitm3 wrote: post #90
bko wrote: post #73

Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…

It is really good when you search for vague terms, but it seems to come at the cost of ruining precision technical search. Google also censors some results in controversial categories, where Bing/Yahoo return what I am looking for. I don't trust a search engine that censors entire categories of results. I am not an adwords user but anecdotes in another HN thread seems to affirm that Google is due to be disrupted: htt…

What kind of technical queries are you running? I just searched for "HLCD0438 datasheet" on Google and DDG. I think it is a great example of very precise, and very techinical query.

DDG's first page was only fake sites and wrong answers.

Google gave me the right answer right away (in the positions 2 and 3)

(for those who don't know legacy electronics: I was looking for the box with labeled pins, like on first page of https://www.turus.com.tr/class/INNOVAEditor/assets/PDF/MM584... )

Re: The world needs more search engines

#508

Post by theamk »

solso wrote: post #385
bko wrote: post #73

Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search. I use ddg, but I use google search via !g about 25-50% of the time after a failed attempts. And 9 times out of 10 Google gives me exactly what I'm looking for. For instance: "the actor that plays the news guy in spiderman" ddg: Tom Holland (side bar) Spider-Man Homecoming (imdb) Tom Holland (wiki) Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Ver…

The claim: "Google's dominance is almost entirely due to the fact that its by far the best at search." is, and I'm sorry to say, a make-believe Google's quality is better than anyone else, that is a fact. Let's go to the point. [[I work on Cliqz, and in search]] Do you know how much Google pays apple to be the default search engine? According to you, nothing, because people will go to Google because it's the best. We…

This logic is only valid if you assume Apple cares a lot about their users getting the best search results. I don't think this is the case.

Instead, Apple has a thing to sell -- "position of default search engine" -- and it is selling it to highest bidder.

I bet if Bing would offer 10 Billion, they'd make Bing default instead. Hey, if DDG could offer them 10 Billion, I am sure they would set it as default, easily ignoring the fact that many people say they do not like its results.

Re: The world needs more search engines

#509

Post by green1 »

crispinb wrote: post #501
green1 wrote: post #279

There is no way Google doesn't use fingerprinting, or something even more advanced/creepy. I never sign into Google, use private browsing by default and use VPNs (not to hide, just for various location reasons), and Youtube's recommended for you is full of stuff unrelated the current video I'm watching that I've seen before with different IPs and locations/VPNs. Edit: LMAO at the sudden attempt to bury this post with…

I find exactly the opposite. I use adblockers, privacy badger, allow no third party cookies, and segregate google logins. It's pretty obvious from my google & youtube searches that they have no idea who I am or where I've been. Funnily enough, it wouldn't occur to me however to use my own experience to make a sweeping judgement about what Google does in the large, because I just don't know. Even if I suspected, I'd b…

So your personal experience does nothing less than illustrate Google's tracking to an "obvious" degree, but my personal experience is simply "making a sweeping judgement" and "confusing this with knowledge for the sake of my own cognitive hygiene".

Thanks for clearing that up.

Edit: Flagged and downvoted within seconds of posting (obvious bot is obvious)? While the snide, passive-aggressive post I replied to is still black? This is bordering on insane now. LOL

Re: The world needs more search engines

#510

Post by franga2000 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #358
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the results were made in incognito mode so Google wasn't able to cheat with privileged information about me as a user. that's not what Incognito mode does. It prevents your search from being included in the browsing history and doesn't send cookies from active sessions, but that's about it. Google still knows this is you being unauthenticated. You don't need to be logged into google to be reliably targeted with…

This comment and everything downstream from it are a distraction from their point: Run their query from your machine or from Tor and you'll see the same results in Google and lack of results in DDG. Another example is a query for "elm dict". DDG has little idea what you're looking for while Google links you directly to the docs of Elm's Dict data-structure.

See, my experience is quite the opposite when it comes to programming documentation. Whether it's StackOverflow or Django/Python docs, DDG seems to always get me there faster. I switch to Google for absurdly specific errors because it's database is simply bigger, but every time I have to spend a few minutes throwing quotation marks around parts of the query to get Google to actually find anything useful.
Post reply on HN